State v. Crisp

2025 Ohio 1718

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Crisp, 2025-Ohio-1718.]

COURT OF APPEALS LICKING COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO, : JUDGES: : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, P.J. Plaintiff - Appellee : Hon. Andrew J. King, J. : Hon. Kevin W. Popham, J. -vs- : : JOSHUA D. CRISP : Case No. 2024 CA 00057 : Defendant - Appellant : OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Licking County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2023 CR 00864

JUDGMENT: Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT: May 13, 2025

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant

KEN OSWALT APRIL F. CAMPBELL Assistant Prosecutor Campbell Law Office Licking County, Ohio 545 Metro Place South, Suite 100 20 South 2nd Street Dublin, Ohio 43017 Newark, Ohio 43055 Baldwin, P.J.

{¶1} The appellant’s counsel has submitted an Anders Brief in which she offers

the following two potential assignments of error: the trial court erred in denying the

appellant’s motion to suppress; and, the trial court erred in accepting the appellant’s no

contest pleas and in imposing sentence. Appellee is the State of Ohio.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND THE CASE

{¶2} On or about November 16, 2023, law enforcement officials executed a

Search Warrant at 620 McKinley Ave., Unit F, in Newark, Ohio. The Search Warrant was

supported by the Affidavit of Detective Jarrod Conley of the Newark Police Department,

who was at the time assigned to the Central Ohio Drug Enforcement Task Force.

{¶3} The appellant was one of a number of individuals at the McKinley Ave.

location. The appellant exited a sleeper cabin of a semi that had been removed and

placed inside the unit. Officers searched the sleeper cabin, and searched a safe found

therein which held a wallet containing the appellant’s EBT card, approximately 37 grams

of suspected Methamphetamine in three separate baggies, digital scales with residue,

baggies, and a pipe used for smoking Methamphetamine. The appellant was Mirandized

and thereafter interviewed, during which he admitted that the substances were his but

claimed they were for his personal use. Detective Conley filed a criminal complaint

against the appellant, who made a court appearance and was appointed counsel.

{¶4} On November 30, 2023, the appellant was indicted on the following

charges: Count One, aggravated possession of drugs (Methamphetamine) in an amount

exceeding five times bulk but less than fifty times bulk in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A) and

(C)(1)(c), a felony of the second degree; Count Two, aggravated trafficking in drugs (Methamphetamine) in an amount exceeding five times bulk but less than fifty times bulk

in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2) and (C)(1)(d), a felony of the second degree; and, Count

Three, illegal use or possession of drug paraphernalia in violation of R.C. 2925.14(C)(1),

a misdemeanor of the fourth degree. The appellant pleaded not guilty at his December 5,

2023, arraignment.

{¶5} The Search Warrant and supporting Affidavit originally listed the address to

be searched as 621 McKinley Ave., which appeared to have been changed by hand to

reflect the correct address - 620 McKinley Ave. As a result of this discrepancy, the

appellant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the altered address constituted a defect

in the warrant, vitiating its legitimacy. Detective Conley testified at the July 9, 2024,

Suppression Hearing that he noticed the typographical error regarding the address, and

corrected it by hand before presenting the search warrant documents to the signing judge.

Based upon Detective Conley’s testimony, the trial court denied the appellant’s Motion to

Suppress.

{¶6} The appellant changed his plea to no contest the same day and the matter

proceeded to sentencing, during which the trial court engaged in the requisite Crim.R. 11

colloquy. The court ensured that the appellant was entering his plea knowingly and

voluntarily; and, reviewed with the appellant the rights he was giving up by pleading no

contest, as well as the potential sentence. The court accepted the appellant’s no contest

plea, and when the appellant waived a pre-sentence investigation the court proceeded to

sentence him. The court merged the appellant’s second degree trafficking and

possession offenses, and sentenced him to a mandatory minimum term of two years and maximum term of three years. In addition, the court sentenced him to a 30-day jail term

on the drug paraphernalia offense, to be served concurrently.

{¶7} The appellant filed a timely appeal, and his counsel filed a brief pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which she sets forth the following two

potential assignments of error:

{¶8} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING CRISP’S MOTION TO

SUPPRESS.”

{¶9} “II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED ACCEPTING CRISP’S GUILTY PLEAS

UNDER CRIM.R. 11 AND ERRED IN SENTENCING HIM.”

STANDARD OF REVIEW

{¶10} The United States Supreme Court held in Anders that if, after conscientious

examination of the record, an appellant’s counsel concludes the case is wholly frivolous,

then he or she should so advise the court and request permission to withdraw. Id. at 744.

Counsel must accompany the request with a brief identifying anything in the record that

could arguably support the appeal. Id. Counsel also must: (1) furnish his client with a copy

of the brief and request to withdraw; and, (2) allow his client sufficient time to raise any

matters that the client chooses. Id. Once the appellant’s counsel has satisfied these

requirements, the appellate court must fully examine the proceedings below to determine

if any arguably meritorious issues exist. If the appellate court also determines that the

appeal is wholly frivolous, it may grant counsel's request to withdraw and dismiss the

appeal without violating constitutional requirements or may proceed to a decision on the

merits if state law so requires. Id. {¶11} Attorney April F. Campbell, the appellant’s appointed appellate counsel,

filed an Anders brief on December 11, 2024, informing this Court that she had

conscientiously examined the case, reviewed the entire record, researched all potential

issues, and determined that there were no meritorious issues for review which would

support an appeal. Attorney Campbell requested that this Court make an independent

review of the record to determine whether there are any additional issues that would

support an appeal. She served a copy of the Appellant’s Anders Brief, as well as copies

of the transcripts, upon the appellant. Attorney Campbell filed a Motion to Withdraw

together with her Anders Brief.

{¶12} This Court informed the appellant in a December 18, 2024, Judgment Entry

that the Court received notice he had been informed by his attorney that an Anders brief

had been filed on his behalf and provided notice that supplied the appellant with a copy.

In addition, the appellant was granted sixty days from the date of the entry to file a pro se

brief in support of his appeal. The appellant did not file a pro se brief.

{¶13} The record establishes that the appellant’s counsel has satisfied the

requirements set forth in Anders. Accordingly, we review the record in this case and

determine whether any arguably meritorious issues exist, “… keeping in mind that,

‘Anders equates a frivolous appeal with one that presents issues lacking in arguable

merit. An issue does not lack arguable merit merely because the prosecution can be

expected to present a strong argument in reply or because it is uncertain whether a

defendant will prevail on the issue on appeal. “An issue lacks arguable merit if, on the

facts and law involved, no responsible contention can be made that it offers a basis for

reversal.” State v. Pullen, 2002-Ohio-6788, ¶ 4 (2nd Dist.); State v. Marbury, 2003-Ohio- 3242, ¶ 7-8 (2nd Dist.); State v. Chessman, 2005-Ohio-2511, ¶ 16-17 (2nd Dist.).” State

v. Moore, 2009-Ohio-1416, ¶ 4 (2nd Dist.).’ ” State v. Reynolds, 2024-Ohio-1956, ¶ 10

(5th Dist.).

ANALYSIS

{¶14} Appellate counsel submits as her first potential assignment of error that the

trial court erred in denying the appellant’s motion to suppress. We disagree.

{¶15} The potential issue with regard to the search warrant involves a

typographical error that the investigating detective corrected prior to presentation of his

Affidavit and the Search Warrant to the signing judge. This Court addressed the issue of

clerical errors and their impact on the validity of search warrants in State v. Newman,

2017-Ohio-4047 (5th Dist.): “However, it is well-established that inadvertent clerical

errors, unless they cause prejudice to the defendant, will not invalidate an otherwise valid

search warrant.” Id. at ¶ 22. In the case sub judice, the testimony presented at the

suppression hearing evidenced the fact that the error regarding the address of the

premises to be searched was discovered by Detective Conley and corrected prior to

submission of his Affidavit and the Search Warrant to the signing judge. There was no

error in the procurement of the warrant, as the address was corrected from 621 McKinley

Ave. to 620 McKinley Ave. prior to submission to the judge. Further, even if this were to

be considered error, there is no evidence that the appellant suffered prejudice as a result

of the correction.

{¶16} In addition, the appellant conceded at the change of plea and sentencing

hearing that if the appellee had communicated the details regarding Detective Conley’s

correction to the Affidavit and Search Warrant prior to submission to the signing judge, the appellant would have dismissed his motion to suppress. The appellant’s first potential

assignment of error is, therefore, without merit.

{¶17} Appellate counsel submits as her second potential assignment of error that

the trial court erred in accepting the appellant’s guilty plea under Crim.R. 11, and in

sentencing him. We disagree.

{¶18} Our review of the record supports the finding that the trial court complied

with Crim.R. 11. The trial court engaged in a thorough colloquy with the appellant,

advising him of the constitutional rights he was giving up; informing him regarding

maximum potential penalties, including the fact that by pleading guilty he was subject to

a mandatory prison sentence; and, ensuring that he understood the potential sentence

for his no contest plea, and that he would be subject to post-release control upon his

release. The trial court also questioned the appellant to determine whether he was able

to understand his plea and whether it was validly entered. The court determined that the

appellant understood his plea and that it was validly entered. Accordingly, the appellant’s

guilty plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently given, and there was no error in

the trial court’s acceptance of the appellant’s plea of no contest to one count of

aggravated possession of drugs, one count of aggravated trafficking in drugs, and one

count of illegal use or possession of drug paraphernalia.

{¶19} Nor did the trial court err in the sentence imposed upon the appellant.

Felony sentences are reviewed under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). State v. Goings, 6th Dist.

Lucas No. L-13-1103, 2014-Ohio-2322, 2014 WL 2480615, ¶ 20. An appellate court may

increase, modify, or vacate and remand a judgment only if it clearly and convincingly finds

either “(a) the record does not support the sentencing court's findings under division (B) or (D) of section 2929.13, division (B)(2)(e) or (C)(4) of section 2929.14, or division (I) of

section 2929.20 of the Revised Code, whichever, if any, is relevant” or “(b) the sentence

is otherwise contrary to law.” State v. Yeager, 6th Dist. Sandusky No. S-15-025, 2016-

Ohio-4759, 2016 WL 3573887, ¶ 7, citing R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). The trial court merged the

appellant’s aggravated possession and aggravated trafficking charges, and sentenced

him to a minimum of two years and a maximum of three years – well within statutory

parameters.

{¶20} Misdemeanor sentences are within the discretion of the sentencing court,

and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion if they are within statutory

parameters. A 30-day sentence on the misdemeanor charge of illegal use or possession

of drug paraphernalia is well within statutory parameters, particularly since it was imposed

concurrently with his sentence on the second degree felony charge to which he pleaded

no contest. Thus, the appellant’s total stated term of imprisonment was a minimum of

two years, with a maximum of three years.

{¶21} The sentence imposed by the trial court was within the statutory

parameters. As such, the trial court did not err with regard to the sentence imposed upon

the appellant, and the appellant’s potential assignment of error number two is without

merit. CONCLUSION

{¶22} Based upon the foregoing, and after independently reviewing the record,

we agree with appellate counsel’s conclusion that no non-frivolous claims exist that would

justify remand or review of the appellant’s conviction or sentence. We find the appeal to

be wholly frivolous under Anders. Attorney Campbell’s motion to withdraw as counsel for

the appellant is hereby granted, and the judgment of the Licking County Court of Common

Pleas is hereby affirmed.

By: Baldwin, P.J.

King, J. and

Popham, J. concur.